Tax Season Reminds Gay Couples That They Lack Rights

Married same-sex couples in Massachusetts live in a state that recognizes their unions. But in the eyes of the US government, they're still bachelors, or bachelorettes.

Mary Ritchie and her spouse Kathleen Bush have been legally married for five years. They have two children and Mary is a state police trooper. But there's one thing that makes this typical family different: when they file tax returns this year, they cannot check "married filing jointly." Mary and Kathleen say this detail has cost them almost $15,000 in taxes.

Now Mary and Kathleen are joining a dozen other couples to sue the federal government, challenging part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The part in question prevents the federal government from awarding Social Security and other benefits to same-sex couples, regardless of their marriage status in home states.

The couples aren't just arguing fairness. They say DOMA violates the state's right to regulate marriage.

"Couldn't have said it better myself unDave. Churches are well within their rights to refuse to marry people (I know a rabbi who will not marry a couple unless they are both Jewish and priests who requires that they both be Catholic), but the government should recognize all committed unions regardless of the religious or sexual orientation of the people involved."
Well said!
The tax laws are definitely slanted towards married, straight couples with children. Very antiquated in a time where "family" has become more flexible.
And don't even get me started on tax deductions for people with children... :)

"Couldn't have said it better myself unDave. Churches are well within their rights to refuse to marry people (I know a rabbi who will not marry a couple unless they are both Jewish and priests who requires that they both be Catholic), but the government should recognize all committed unions regardless of the religious or sexual orientation of the people involved." Well said! The tax laws are definitely slanted towards married, straight couples with children. Very antiquated in a time where "family" has become more flexible. And don't even get me started on tax deductions for people with children... :)

"It's the government recognition that's the problem not the churches recognition. "Thirded.And it's complicated! I just filed my state return in California and there was this whole special set of instructions, like, if you were married between these dates, then you can file as married, after this date and if you got married on a Tuesday when it was cloudy...

"It's the government recognition that's the problem not the churches recognition. "
Thirded.
And it's complicated! I just filed my state return in California and there was this whole special set of instructions, like, if you were married between these dates, then you can file as married, after this date and if you got married on a Tuesday when it was cloudy...

"and priests who requires that they both be Catholic" kpelli73, I don't want to say I don't believe you, but if a priest held such a position, and it was brought to the bishop of his diocese attention, that priest would probably be suspended, and sent back to the seminary, for additional training on church doctrine. Such a position is contrary to church doctrine. My parents got married by a priest in a catholic church close to 75 years ago, and at a time the church was VERY conservative and traditional, and in a country that was probably the most conservative Catholic priests in the world. Ireland would not give up the Latin mass, it took a few years, and a direct order from Pope John XXIII, to the Bishops of Ireland to put the mass in English, or in Gaelic, in the Irish speaking part of Ireland.

"and priests who requires that they both be Catholic"
kpelli73, I don't want to say I don't believe you, but if a priest held such a position, and it was brought to the bishop of his diocese attention, that priest would probably be suspended, and sent back to the seminary, for additional training on church doctrine. Such a position is contrary to church doctrine. My parents got married by a priest in a catholic church close to 75 years ago, and at a time the church was VERY conservative and traditional, and in a country that was probably the most conservative Catholic priests in the world. Ireland would not give up the Latin mass, it took a few years, and a direct order from Pope John XXIII, to the Bishops of Ireland to put the mass in English, or in Gaelic, in the Irish speaking part of Ireland.

"I just don't understand why this is an issue in the first place. How is the commitment of marriage between a straight couple any different from the commitment of marriage between a couple of the same sex?"Marriage benefits were started as a way of government sponsored social engineering. I don't agree with it personally, but the idea is that the traditional family structure is good for society. As such, the government makes it beneficial to adopt that structure. There are always exceptions to the rule, but in general I agree that the traditional family structure is the cornerstone of a good society. Are gay couples as beneficial to society? I don't think that should be the benchmark as to whether they should get their piece of social engineering too. The government needs to get out of our business.

"I just don't understand why this is an issue in the first place. How is the commitment of marriage between a straight couple any different from the commitment of marriage between a couple of the same sex?"
Marriage benefits were started as a way of government sponsored social engineering. I don't agree with it personally, but the idea is that the traditional family structure is good for society. As such, the government makes it beneficial to adopt that structure. There are always exceptions to the rule, but in general I agree that the traditional family structure is the cornerstone of a good society.
Are gay couples as beneficial to society? I don't think that should be the benchmark as to whether they should get their piece of social engineering too. The government needs to get out of our business.

As much as I love to see everyone agreeing, I have to point out that civil unions are a liberal idea. Perhaps it is the other way around, Mr. D. Perhaps you are become just a liiiiiiiittle bit more liberal. Just a little. ;)" 'marriage' is a religious concept that should be left to religious institutions, and that the government shouldn't have any business deciding who gets 'married'. Instead, the government should issue 'civil unions' (which lack the religious connotation) so that all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, can have the same rights."I agree, and well said.

As much as I love to see everyone agreeing, I have to point out that civil unions are a liberal idea. Perhaps it is the other way around, Mr. D. Perhaps you are become just a liiiiiiiittle bit more liberal. Just a little. ;)
" 'marriage' is a religious concept that should be left to religious institutions, and that the government shouldn't have any business deciding who gets 'married'. Instead, the government should issue 'civil unions' (which lack the religious connotation) so that all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, can have the same rights."
I agree, and well said.